smølense auTamper mountain

~ ~ {No, I disagree. I don't think referring to just ' a minor 4th ' actually confers so much insight; in and of it's inherent implication. Perhaps you can humour me, and explain...} ~ Would anyone else like to blaze a more constructive trail pertaining to the technical skillsets that a keyboardist uses to respond, or react to the harmonic content within a live, performance context¿? ~ ~ I'll take some more 'rhetorical-stabs' at the synthesists.- maybe I can rally-up some more prospective criteria from them - °Hypothetically, even though there are currently a number of newer features on synthesizers which are intended to endow that particular model of synthesizer with an improved, or more dynamic performance experience; the challenge of accommodating for the sonic peculiarities from other members in a performance, is still confined by that synths architecture. Pitch-bend, ribbon controllers, interposing the audio content back through one of the synths modulating functions... [I could spend all night personally trying to cite all these capacitating performance configurations.] Does anyone else recognize where these kinds of dynamic provisions are constrictive, and only-so-effective at compensating for `emphasis on a keyboard¿? I'm curious if, or how anyone else addresses the matter of [their aesthetically preferenced~] responsive emphasis. I think it is enough of a formal element for effective' music. A keyboardist is not necessarily removed from the creative task, though they are constricted by some distinct physical dilemmas that are respective to their personal instrumentation. ~ ---- ^Atti H::°^

All I can do is commend you, at this point, for your experience with the 'horn' called a euphonium -- the miniaturized`, baratone-tuba resemblant instrument {I presume}. It's a distinctly different implication, which I had intended to reference. I've always enjoyed the tone of a baritone tuba~ for whatever that might be worth; not to discredit the tenacity of that instrument... I have similar experiences practicing throughout the course of my life, with various instruments. However, despite the fact that I've rarely had the sort of instrumentation which would seem natural in a formal orchestra, my experiences with A-typical regimentations [I've played in and around a lot of experimental music] still requires that I draft from the musical terminology that had been devised for long-standing, classical formats - like an orchestra, big-band, preforming ensembles, opera, plays, or any of the other recognizable, musically contingent, regimented formats. NOT to be so presumptuous, and assert that this was where the significant focus of your experience with that instrument was implemented for; rather, perhaps you have had the kind of experience to recognize the delineation for these theoretical rubrics. ~~ ^atti_

It's an objective enough reality. I wasn't so very inclined to believe you had any pre-existing preference.

My regards RIP

whatever 'EARTHLING' I speak, just so happens to a malconstrued contingent, obliterated by domineering auspicions.

As quick follow-up... The point I'm attempting to exemplify, is that 'WERE' I able to bend the minor-4th in that context [{which I am not- on a piano, able to do, with the kind of consistancy which would make for a comparable aesthetic viability to those methodical orientations of a viola, or saxophone}], The musical form which may result from the initial key-signiture could provide the marginal harmonic deviations which might make the tonality of a saxophone or viola remarkably more accentuated. Compensating for these kinds of tonic discrepancies with a keyboard, is only standard fare. Any musical preferences aside; the propensity that a keyboard exhibits for coordinating respective tonal interactions, is a definative factor for many of musical qualities of a composition. ^ATTI..::°,

Not sure what else I could cite, at this point, to confer these concepts. Beyond the scope of any relevance pertaining to concepts "like", *Euphony; or, the punctually responsive methods [*articulation] performed by keyboardists to react {^and compensate} for the musical harmony in a live\\real-time scenario; or, the aesthetic basis, keyboardists are physically oriented, to respond-with: ~ It has been my postulation that, performance requires a very physically responsive interaction with an instrument, that distinguishes "the-keyboardists" propensity for musical emphasis from other instrumentations by their affective use in distinct symphonic coordination. Initially; I had intented to confer where this artifact of key instruments, is a rudimentary tactical constraint. One, that is essential to understand for dynamic musical aesthetics. ~ Due to the nature of keyboard mechanisms: To be typifiably constrained by a common ~12-tone scaling, a punctuating hammer-mechanism which [{indirectly}] 'converts' a musicians implicit emphasis, or any of the figurative problems resulting from the invariance of emitting a musical cadence which is only (accessibly) confined by a single, designated timbre; it is all too central to the focus of this post. ~ ** {{ ~Had it ever been important to confer an intensive disposition WHICH IS CONTRARY to the written text I've already conveyed, the subjegations of my `profusion of language' would only inturr an additional, superfluous excess. ~I use very concise language. It is not my privilege to adorn my inflections with the same predominant-pretenses, which frequently malconstrue these critical, very loaded, and exhaustively auspicious, semantic basis'. ~As a result, it IS [-AS] critical for me to explain as much supplimentive connotations, relevant for these theoretical concepts; due to their dwindling, antiquated, and out of use basis. }} ** That is how I have provided a basis for speculating about these methods. As a personal an example; As a pianist myself, where a song may be constructed with a passage in ~A minor°°, per say; Where it is critically imperative for me to avoid an extraineous use 4ths, or the operable minor 4th is qualitative when it is performed in contingence with musical instruments like, saxophones (keyed typically in B-flat), or Violas (which are usually strung in relation to A, {although are typically arpeggiated in accordance with the tonal harmonic register which is invocative NOT TO A SPECIFIC Key-signature, but rather: the resonant intervals between notes}). °4THs, °5ths, or any harmonically tonal articulation, becomes musically conductive, or precipitative, with identifiably austier relations to these other respective musical instruments. -If a violist is playing a quick phrase in the a-minor key, as a keyboardist, the potential for me to embelish any supporting counterpoint is {however subjective} critically contingent on the punctuation of the root 4th. The archetecture of tonality is usually just as far from a non-discript interactive prevalence, within any other musical context. I'm on the line, here... Drying out for whatever reason, anyhow. Thanks for the feedback ^atti, --^

..aloha. Thanks for the feedback- Yep. I'm absolutely aware I'm not speaking on behalf of every musician. You may just have to suffer my use of language. I'm just that stubborn of an [°old]-norse descendant. {°Your imperious use of semantics doesn't necessarily appeal to me either.} To break some more ice... The origins for the concept of Euphony, were derived long ago. They have cense become implemented by various other conventional uses. The keyboard entitled: 'the Euphonium'; is likely entitled for it's use as a device which effectively relates, (by correlation) to the original connotation for that term. Any number of the instruments called a ~Euphonium are often pivotally oriented to address the conditional basis of `euphony; The Mellotron's lesser-known successor, the East-indian Reed-based mechanisms, or the aperatures in use in organ installations - referred to by their connotative remediation of dissonant phasing {wherever that may be perceived to be intervening into the organs harmonic content~}. I'm referring, very concretely, to the symptomatic respect for concordant articulation, by a performer. There may be any number of synthesized sounds to ASSERT that there is a musical continuity between inflective harmonics with a synth. What I have an express interest to assess, here; is the technical skills a keyboardist can implement, envolved in a live\\acoustic context, which key-players use to RESPOND to the variations in diverse acoustic contexts. With all the innovation of our present era, it has become a substantially diminishing event, where the physical interactions that are involved within any [°keyboard format°], are left entirely unscrutinized by the criteria where they correspond by as much of a performers reciprocative articulative relationship, then from just the harmonic relationships that can be recognizably determined; derived from either synthesis, or from within the keyboards physical provision as an acoustic source. Because most contemporary keyboards have had the physical acoustic underpinnings removed from their mechanism; I think it stands to reason that the propensity for any 'Direct Interpersonal Nuance' is, sub-sequentially, reduced from `the-keyboardists formally involved disposition [*as matter of physical coordination]. To maintain the postulative basis for my conjectures; Where a keyboardists articulations for 'Symphonic-Euphony' differ, is a directly contingent distinction, where it is derived from their capacity for interactive\\responsive nuances. Responsiveness is not eliminated from the comprehensive, musical-formula; it is simply--reduced from the propensity [<a keyboardist can employ>] for tactile-responses. ~~~A guitarist can bend the neck of a guitar, or pull a literal, 'tonal-cent' of vibrato to compensate for interpersonal reactions. A keyboardist does not typically conduct these same forms of direct, tactile amendments; within even some of the most gargantuan synthesizer assemblages. A keyboardist's musical responsiveness is typically rudimented with only that distinct, °sonic-separation°, already aesthetically presumed.* ~ I'm not bashing the musical integrity of the instrument. The keyboard is a wonderful musical instrument. I'm asserting that there is a physically distinct method, which keyboards provide for music. You can bash my musical background all you like, it has nothing to do with my initiative to assess this aspect, in a performance context. I don't care to elaborate about my musical achievements, at the moment; beyond the professional scope pertaining to constructive, musical patronage. I could be the most `pathetic `novice in the world, and this criteria would still be relevant for any keyboardist to examine. --- Thanks again for the feedback ^ATTI::

Growing up, playing out of a garage; with whichever scrapped together instruments my neighbors and I could coax to make a noise, any distinguishing sonic characteristics we produced were only subsequent to the highest volumes we could implement [{`Those odds, typically, were as often bet a-pon the impending neighbors, as much as the thresholds of our own ringing ears}] . However aesthetically valid that music was, playing in the garages and basements lent it's self predominately, as an `aesthetically - 'Tonal' aspect, with in the scope of whatever culminative harmonic resonance which a room provided .. Whatever articulation we dubbed of an importance; began only in those respects: pervading the corresponding sonic intensity that would 'Dwarf-The-Room-In-Sonic-Immolation'. Later; The musical tonality became less of a fixture for occupying unused Aural - 'space'. Whichever personal aesthetics I am now [subjectively] inclined to; that distinguishing responsiveness in performance conditions is a matter of musicianship which many artists assess. Beyond the banter of stray, erroneous, technical °factors that any musician clues into-{<*or out of>}; in performance, the `Keyboardist's non-discript 'Inflections', are scarcely recognized as affluential temperaments for the contributions which they assert in any prosthesis of musical continuity. Amongst the gross, comprehensive range of the harmonic tonality, with which, any given work may consist of; the role of the pianist, or the role that the keyboardist typically plays is only a tinctural fragmentation {~construed from musical semantics;}, `inferring in-respect' TO the candor of a musical piece; not [{by contrast}] as a symptomatic, pathogenic emissary. Where it is that keyboardists are frequently 'overlayed', their timbral part is usually a-symptomatic when conducted in the collective unison, for a works complicit timbral cadence. As it is, where; keyboards, synthesizers, or organs are usually identifiable by the stature of accompaniment which they serve as the filimental role, for the distinct LACK OF NUANCE that they exhibit; or, also as a formidably implaide constituent, {°~where used: ``contracting a devisable rubric for any compositions symbolic purposes°°} ~ Stylistically, a keyboardists versatility, performing through various conditions which are endemic for their [specific] musical attributions is proficient, and proportional to a number of {°style-subjective} functionally responsive factors. Keyboard performance is about as removed from the propensity of sonic momentum as any instrumentation gets (figuratively speaking). I find Synth-scapes aesthetically amusing, for many of the very same purposes with which a `synth-scapes' emotive inflection, circumvents the viral promiscuity of the evident context; gestative, as it is subsequently foregone by the use of synthetic premises. These performers may have musicality in-stride, although; it is obviously, not the formative propensity of that musical genre to confer a responsive, improvisational musical articulation. With the invention of synthesizers, the retroactive connotation of a performing keyboardist as: the `dead-beat enthusiast, hunched over on the `upright in the corner of a bar, spooling {however gregariously} with {however gloomy} a despondent adulation; is simply a lingering preservation from many of those same untamed, mutritrious premonitions, which many performers, whom are inclined to this instruments format, still edify from those later-gentrifications. Practically speaking, within the quazi-aesthetic boundaries of 'ANY-KEYBOARDISTS' affinities; there is a paramount grant in the innovative accommodations attainable for the purposes of ruminating those diversities for personal, subjective - `artistic-licensure's°; methodical provisions, which remain as approachable for a keyboard player, ascript to their talents, with any distinct stylistic affinities, to instigate those modes for their unique revelatory creative elucidation. In performance, however; the privilege of musicality becomes, quite, pivotally 'AT-A-GLANCE'. Any allocation of a keyboardists amendments can become absurdly construed by minor punctual differences between the musicality in unison symphonic coordination. This is called Euphonium [classically]. The interactions between this `euphonium; is subject [{both here and in practice}] to a diverse range of performers aesthetic conscriptions. It is often, where: criticism is made with the prospective intention to assert the audacity of personal, artistic preferences, where evaluated in respect to any specific musicians aesthetic regard for this aspect. It is interperated as a matter of their comparable synergy; ascribed for how effectively the musician is envolved with any given musical agenda, passage, or piece {e.g. 'The opera singer appeared as if...' \\ ; 'the dancing was `raucus° when...' \\ ; 'I missed the second chorus after that wild`solo°.' \\; etc. } I'd like to hear about anyone's aesthetic renditions, treatments, or conductive regimentations, which; anyone here may be using to react with, in an acoustic\\live context. I'm hoping to broaden my insight into the `vitrative artilliards that other musicians have; what the creative processes people involve in their varying stylistic rubrics. -Atti H. --°^^